SO WHY EXACTLY DON'T YOU WANT $10,000, EVERY YEAR?
 Everyone in the U.S. ought check out what Charles Murray is proposing. Grants for everyone over age 21 who is not in jail and has a bank account. His radical ("at the root") but in my few entirely sensible plan is outlined in his new book, In Our Hands and summarized in this article for the Wall Street Journal.
With regard to the U.S. Federal Government, I'm feeling more and more that a libertarian perspective perhaps is most appropriate — namely, that the federal government ought be concerned primarily (perhaps even only) with "public goods". These are benefits/services that are available to all people on equal terms, and can be consumed by one citizen without reducing availability for anyone else. The best examples are national defense, police protection, clean air, secure borders, interstate highway maitenance, and others.
The assumption (some say enough evidence is present for this to be a conclusion) is that the federal government really doesn't do other things very well, very efficiently, or with much flexibility. And so we would all be better off it the federal government stuck to public goods, which it can do efficiently and with flexibility. Part of Murray's proposal is that at some point over the next 10-30 years, this belief that government at the federal level is inherantly inefficient for non-public goods will be commonly held by most people in this country.
And so, knowing his plan is politically impossible at this time, he has nonetheless proposed it (in, I might add, very clear and understandable terms) so as to be in the public consciousness when, given worsening financial realities of our current structure, radical changes are more feasible, politically. He welcomes comment and debate upon the plan's merits, so I say we give it such consideration and critique.
Watch an hour-long video of him discussing the plan, here.
Let me start that by saying what is immediately attractive about this plan is that is satisfies basic concerns of both left and right. The left gets non-discriminatory, equalilty of distribution — everyone over the age of 21 who is not in jail gets $10,000, every year, deposted into their bank account in monthy increments (i.e., $10,000 divided by 12, every month), and further, wealthier people have to pay part of the money back, so poorer people get all of the $10,000, and wealthier people only a portion (based on income levels). On the other hand, the right gets a smaller government with reduced bureaucracy, and an end to welfare programs, farm subsidies, and other "New Deal" and "Great Society" programs they so object to, on grounds that they diminish the moral emphasis on "self-reliance" and insert the federal government in matters it doesn't belong, or can efficiently or cost-effectively manage.
That Murray's plan answers fundamental concerns of both left and right is very, very good. There's a lot more to say about his plan, including in the area of health insurance. His plan would make a new federal law that, in his words, would “legally obligate medical insurers to treat the entire population as a single pool.” And thus about $3,000 of the $10,000 would be required to go to health insurance costs. So — everyone is covered. Not a bad situation, by any measure.
All in all, this sounds like a "radical middle" way, and I like it. Interestingly, a website called "Radical Middle" has a decent explanation of more of Murray's details. See here.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
|
